Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Kailash Auto Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Bhopal

2016 (12) TMI 1457 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Recovery of interest and penalty - revision of prices of manufactured goods - duty not paid on revised prices - on pointing out duty was paid - time bar - whether, extended period of limitation in terms of the Proviso to Section 11A ibid can be invoked for recovery of interest on delayed payment of principle amount; and penalty can be imposed where there is no element of suppression, fraud, misstatement etc, with intent to evade payment of duty? - Held that: - this Tribunal in the case of Emco L .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Government Revenue. Since Rule 25 ibid is subject to the provisions of Section 11AC ibid, which clearly provides that in case of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, equal amount of penalty shall be imposed, and in absence of any specific findings to that effect by the authorities below, I am of the view that penalty imposed in the adjudication order and confirmed in the impugned order is not sustained in the eyes of law. - Demand of interest and penalty set asid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vehicles, falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit on various inputs, input services and capital goods used in the manufacturing process. The appellant receives duty paid chassis from M/s Tata Motors and thereafter upon building the body, removes the same on payment of Central Excise Duty on some occasions, Tata Motors amends the purchase orders in view of revision in the sale prices. Based on the revision of price, the appellant submit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ability and for imposition of penalty. The said SCN was adjudicated vide order dated 31.03.2009 in confirming the proposals made therein. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. Sh. Shaswat, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the differential duty of ₹ 5,57,885/- was deposited by the appellant on 11.01.2005 and thereafter the SCN was issued after one year, s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

decision, reported in 2015 (325) ELT A-104 Bom. 4. With regard to penalty imposed in the adjudication order, the Ld. Advocate submits that provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, read with Section 11AC ibid has been invoked by the authorities below, which is not proper and justified in the fact of this case inasmuch as non-payment of duty at the material time was due to oversight and not attributable to any malafides on the part of the appellant. Thus, he submits that penalty imposed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons, the Ld. AR has relied on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata vs Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (278) ELT 579 (SC), judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE and ST LTU Bangalore vs Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. 2011 (267) ELT 593 (Kar.) and judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE & C. Aurangabad vs Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 23 (Bom.). 6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n pointing out the mistake by the department on 11.01.2005 and thereafter the SCN was issued on 15.04.2008, seeking recovery of the interest amount and for imposition of penalty. The said SCN has been issued under the proviso to Section 11A ibid. The facts regarding finalization of the provisional price, issuance of supplementary bills, payment of differential duty etc. were known to the department, and in such eventuality, the department should have issued the SCN within one year from relevant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said decision is extracted herein below. 11. The Central Excise Act provides a time limit of one year from the relevant date for demand of duty in normal circumstances and a time limit of five years for demand of duty in cases where fraud, suppression of facts, collusion, etc. are involved. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the assessee delayed payment of duty on account of any of these elements. On the other hand, it is very clear that the assessee had discharged the differential .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version